Malaysia's General Election 13 to be survival of the fittest

It’s all a matter of endurance. Given the stakes, tensions have also heightened. Both sides have a great deal to lose. 

WE are entering the final straight. Whether the date of the actual polling day is in June, July, September or even next year, the finishing line is fast approaching.

It’s all a matter of endurance. Who can best manage their own resources and minimise their weaknesses? Whose “messaging” is the most focused and sustained?

Given the stakes, tensions have also heightened. Both sides have a great deal to lose.

As Tun Daim Zainuddin said a few months ago, the contest between Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional is much like an extended game of tennis – with victory going to the side that commits the least unforced errors.

In this respect Barisan would appear to be gaining the lead. Pakatan’s lack of access to the mainstream media further undermines the challenger’s chances.

Last week’s resignation of DAP Senator and vice-president Tunku Abdul Aziz Ibrahim and PAS’ continued call for the introduction of the syariah have raised doubts about Pakatan’s ability to hold the middle-ground.

But there are also real dangers in trying to “read” the election outcome from the mainstream media. Official controls will always tend to magnify Pakatan’s mistakes whilst minimising Barisan’s missteps and only a fool would ignore the Internet’s ubiquitous presence.

At the same time, the vast numbers of new voters have injected an enormous degree of uncertainty into the game.

It is as if Tun Daim’s tennis game had been crossed with a Sony Wii as well as a Pentagon battle-ground simulator: permutations are the new “norm”.

No one knows for certain where these young people will cast their ballots. As Ben Suffian of Merdeka Centre explains: “They lack the loyalty of their parents. They are better informed and more sceptical: arbitraging on news and events.”

But when all is said and done, the voters are faced with four fundamental decisions when they’re dealing with Barisan, which are as follows:

> Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak: Should the Malaysians reward or punish him? Have his reforms satisfied the voting public? Conversely, has he been too weak in the face of non-Malay demands? Does Bersih 3.0 accurately reflect popular sentiment? Does he deserve to better Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s 2008 result? Will we reward him with the constitutional majority? Can his personal popularity (much like Abdullah’s at the same stage of the 2008 scenario) strengthen his hold on power?

> Umno: For over five decades – the United Malays National Organisation has been the parti kerajaan – the party of Government with its supreme council meetings surpassing Cabinet in terms of “real” authority? Is the automatic identification of party and government (along with all the attendant patronage) coming to an end? Or is it merely a case of the parti kerajaan becoming a parti politik no different from PAS and PKR? Is Umno’s supremacy finished?

> Barisan Nasional: Can the alliance remain intact if the country’s second largest community, the Chinese, remove their support? Is an Umno-dominated coalition sustainable? Are we witnessing the end of the so-called unwritten consensus that has brought us thus far? What will be the substitute?

> Malaysia: Will the 13th General Election see the firming up of the two-coalition system or its demise? Are we Malaysians comfortable with the level of checks and balances that have entered our political lexicon since 2008 or do we wish to return to the past – entrusting the Barisan, unreservedly with our future?

March 8, 2008 was a surprise result. It upset our (and especially my) lazy assumptions.

Will the upcoming polls see this becoming the new normal or will we return to the status quo ante? I will try my best to cover these dilemmas. But then again, if we refer to Tun Daim’s tennis analogy and the doubts raised by Bersih, another major question surrounds the “rules of the game” – who determines the players, especially the millions of new voters?

CERITALAH  By KARIM RASLAN

Bersih 3.0: the good, bad and ugly Malaysians

When people who want change take to the streets, some stick to the perimeters of the law while others, with ulterior motives, break barriers and turn things unruly. 

BERSIH 3.0 co-chairman Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan's call for people to show their displeasure and demand for electoral reforms on Saturday brought out thousands of Malaysians from all races and walks of life in a colourful expression of free will.

But Ambiga's calls also brought out the professionals the hardcore saboteurs who dreamt of regime change and the provocateurs who simply wanted chaos and trigger a mass protest that could eventually lead to the toppling of a democratically-elected government.

These people dream of sustained protests on the streets that eventually drive away tourists and worry investors.

Taking law into their own hands: Rioters using sticks and helmets to smash a car carrying the TV3 news crew as it was leaving Jalan Tun Perak, Kuala Lumpur, in 1999, soon after the verdict on Anwar was delivered.

 

Such sustained protests were last seen during the reformasi years in the 1990s with the arrest and jailing of the then Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

The same man was present on Saturday, after warning months earlier that Middle East-style protests could hit South-East Asian countries if the reforms were delayed.



If Ambiga thought she could keep everyone within limits, then she was sadly mistaken.

Different people read differently into a mass protest and the hardcore politicians in the crowd have other ideas too.

Reportedly, PKR deputy president Azmin Ali had egged on the crowd to break down the police barriers at Dataran Merdeka that were put up due to a court order declaring the place “out of bounds”.

Ambiga had given the order to disperse at about 3pm, but some marched forward and broke thorough the barriers.

They pelted a police car with bottles and stones, jumped on it and smashed the windscreen and later overturned it. They then attacked a police motorcycle and tried to grab a policeman's gun.

The attack on the police car was reminiscent of an incident in 1999 when a TV3 car was set upon during the reformasi protest.

At a press conference later, Ambiga expressed shock over the turn of events.

The initial carnival mood where people were giving flowers to FRU personnel, who reciprocated by wearing them, was hijacked by a section of the crowd.

Ambiga described the violence as “highly unusual” and suspected that it could have been instigated by agent provocateurs.

The problem is that while Ambiga heads a civil rights movement which is winning support by the day from young people, who incidentally make up the bulk of new voters, she has chosen to tie that movement with Opposition politics.

She has given Opposition leaders an opportunity to ride on the Bersih movement.

Ostensibly, independent non-politicians fill the Bersih steering committee but they are also enthusiastic Pakatan Rakyat supporters.

The Opposition leaders are hardened politicians who have served time in jail, have courted arrest many times and are willing to take greater risk to trigger mass action.

During the two previous Bersih rallies in November 2007 and July 9 last year, a similar scene took place; a section of the crowd taking over the protest and turning it violent.

The same police force, which was peaceful in the morning, was forced to fire tear gas and arrest protesters in the afternoon.

It brings to mind DAP vice-chairman Senator Tunku Abdul Aziz Tunku Ibrahim's warning that by not using the stadiums offered, Bersih 3.0 “encourages Malaysians to break the law”.

He had said he supported an individual's constitutional right to assembly but felt that it must be exercised within the provisions of the law. “As a lawmaker I am not willing to break the law.”

That same advice could also apply to Ambiga, a lawyer, but for politicians who desire regime change it is another matter.

The clock has been turned back on a burgeoning civil rights movement, and what could have been a shining example of peaceful protest, turned into a violent demonstration.

There were no warnings of reprisals in the days leading to Bersih 3.0, no roadblocks set around the city and no arrest of people streaming in for the protest.

But all that was blown away after some protesters breached the police barriers.

Many of the protesters who turned up on Saturday were those who genuinely wanted to bring about positive change. They had meant well and they represented middle Malaysia.

And, for the thousands of young Malaysians who braved Ambiga's call for a sit-in protest over the slow pace of electoral reforms, it was their first baptism of fire and one that they can wear as a badge of honour.

Comment by BARADAN KUPPUSAMY

Related posts:
Bersih 3.0 rally: Malaysia braces for electoral reform protests 
More than 20,000 Malaysians march for election reforms, Bersih 3.0 rally 
Malaysian police fire tear gas at more than 25,000 protesters, Bersih 3.0 rally 
When the Malaysia's Elections will be after Bersih 3 & Occupy Dataran? 
More tests for Malaysian democracy